From: Ankesh <ankesh@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:49:37 -0400

Message-ID: <AANLkTi=qaffaUy941ajrDzBfNQBGbGiKB+nNjOKkVkvK@mail.gmail.com>

To: public-rif-comments@w3.org

Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:49:37 -0400

Message-ID: <AANLkTi=qaffaUy941ajrDzBfNQBGbGiKB+nNjOKkVkvK@mail.gmail.com>

To: public-rif-comments@w3.org

Hi, The semantics of the Assert atomic action is described as follows at [1]: Rule 1 says that *all the condition formulas that were satisfied before an assertion will be satisfied after*, and that, in addition, the condition formulas that are satisfied by the asserted ground formula will be satisfied after the assertion. No other condition formula will be satisfied after the execution of the action. where, Rule 1 is formally defined as: α is Assert(φ), where φ is a ground atomic formula, and *w' = w ∪ {φ}*; I am guessing that "condition formulas" refers to formulas described at [2].. In that case an assertion could change the satisfaction of negation formula, right? ie. a negation formula may be satisfied in w but not in w'. Does this violate the description above. Kindly explain. (A similar argument follows for Rule 2) Furthermore, the formal definition doesn't mention conditional formula while the description (referred above) does. Is something missing there? [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-prd/#Operational_semantics_of_atomic_actions [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-prd/#Formulas thanks, ankeshReceived on Monday, 21 March 2011 08:30:18 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:49:20 UTC
*